IEEE C802.16m-08/1049
Project
IEEE 802.16 Broadband Wireless Access Working Group <http://ieee802.org/16>
Title
Prioritized QoS Framework – Connection Establishment and Maintenance for IEEE 802.16m
Date
Submitted
2008-09-05
Source(s)
An Nguyen
DHS/NCS
Re:
MAC: Connection Establishment and Maintenance
An.P.Nguyen@dhs.gov
In response to IEEE 802.16m-08/033, Call for Contributions and Comments on Project 802.16m System
Description Document (SDD) (2008-08-01)
Abstract
The document describes prioritized QoS framework in connection establishment and maintenance used to support
the priority access in 802.16m
Purpose
Request consideration of prioritized QoS framework in connection establishment and maintenance contained
herein for the 802.16m SDD.
Notice
Release
Patent
Policy
This document does not represent the agreed views of the IEEE 802.16 Working Group or any of its subgroups. It
represents only the views of the participants listed in the “Source(s)” field above. It is offered as a basis for
discussion. It is not binding on the contributor(s), who reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material
contained herein.
The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution,
and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name
any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole
discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The
contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802.16.
The contributor is familiar with the IEEE-SA Patent Policy and Procedures:
<http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6> and
<http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3>.
Further information is located at <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-material.html> and
<http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat>.
IEEE C802.16m-08/1049
Prioritized QoS Framework in Connection Establishment and Maintenance
for IEEE 802.16m
1
Introduction
Priority access is one of important requirements of Emergency Telecommunications Service (ETS) [1]. ETS is a telecommunications
service to facilitate emergency recovery operations for restoring the community infrastructure and for returning the population to
normal living conditions after serious disasters and events, such as floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, and terrorist attacks. The ETS will
be provided through shared resources from the public telecommunications infrastructure, which includes wireline, wireless, satellite,
broadband cable, and any hybrid networks. ETS traffic needs to access, traverse, and egress these networks. Voice, video and data
services are supported by ETS.
IEEE 802.16m has requirements on priority for the government and public safety.
In Section 5.8 of IEEE 802.16m-07/002r4, it said
“IEEE 802.16m shall be able to support public safety first responders, military and emergency services such as call-prioritization,
preemption, push-to-talk”.
Priority access is also a SPWG requirement in Mobile WiMAX [2].
In Release 1.5, “R-[193] The
WIMAX network SHALL provide high priority for special circumstances such as emergency services and deadlock situations. Such
high priority SHALL be protected with appropriate additional levels of authentication.”
Priority access is required for National
Security and Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP) users.
In this contribution, we propose prioritized QoS framework in connection establishment and maintenance to be considered by
802.16m.
1.1
Purpose
The major purpose of this document is to propose prioritized QoS framework in connection establishment and maintenance used to
support the priority access in 802.16m.
All the identified prioritized QoS framework in connection establishment and maintenance is
our recommendations to be included in 802.16m SDD.
1.2
Document Organization
Section 2 presents prioritized QoS framework in connection establishment and maintenance to support priority access to be considered
by 802.16m
Section 3 presents more detailed ETS requirements, especially in the area of priority access.
2
802.16m Prioritized QoS Framework to Support Priority Access
To support priority access in 802.16m, the following procedures are required
•
User subscription
IEEE C802.16m-08/1049
•
Service priority invocation (service priority indication)
•
User authentication (user identity; verifies the service indication is from priority user)
•
Service authorization (specifies the service privileges of priority user)
•
Service priority treatment (service differentiation)
This document discusses the techniques used for service priority treatment.
To provide service priority treatment using 802.16m
networks, the following techniques are required:
•
Prioritized network entry (initial ranging)
•
Prioritized (initial) service flow setup and admission
•
Prioritized session setup and maintenance
•
Prioritized bandwidth request for admitted service flow
•
Prioritized handover
The congestion points for radio access occur at contention-based and allocation-based transmission (shown in Figure 1).
contention-based transmission is mainly used for initial ranging and bandwidth request.
capacity.
The
The allocation-based is to allocate OFDMA
This contribution discusses the prioritized QoS framework to support priority access bandwidth request and allocation-
based transmission.
ASN
16e MS
16m MS
R1
R1
16m BS
R6
ASN Gateway
R6
16m MS
R1
16m BS
• Contention-based radio resource
• Initial ranging
• Bandwidth request
• Allocation-based radio resource
• Service flow admission
Figure 1: Radio Access Congestion Points
.
2.1
Protocol Functions for Priority Access
The protocol functions for priority access are shown in Figure 2. The priority access capability is supported by different logic entities
in the MAC Common Part Sublayer. Network Entry Management entity is responsible for priority access to the contention resource
3
IEEE C802.16m-08/1049
such as initial ranging. Connection Management entity is responsible for service flow setup between BS and MS. And scheduler is for
dynamic radio bandwidth allocation. All these entities shall coordinate with Radio Resource Management entity about the resource
availability. Local Radio Resource stores local radio bandwidth utilization. Radio Resource Management is the entity to access and
update the real-time radio resource information.
16m MS
16m BS
Application Layer
Application Layer
MAC
MAC
Convergence Sublayer
Convergence Sublayer
Common Part Sublayer
Common Part Sublayer
Network
Entry
Management
Local Radio
Resource
Radio
Resource
Management
Network Entry
Management
Local Radio Resource
R1
Connection
Management
Connection
Management
Radio Resource
Management
Scheduler
Scheduler
Security Sublayer
Security Sublayer
PHY
PHY
Figure 2: 802.16m Protocol Functions for Priority Access
The 802.16e has the following network entry steps:
•
Scanning
•
Obtaining parameters
•
Initial ranging
•
Exchanging capabilities
•
Authentication
•
Registration
•
IP connectivity
•
Creating transport connection (Adding service, service flow admission)
•
Bandwidth Request for admitted service flow
4
IEEE C802.16m-08/1049
The priority treatments for initial ranging, creating transport connection and bandwidth request steps are discussed in the following
sections.
2.2
Prioritized Contention Resolution
2.2.1 Introduction
In IEEE 802.16e, initial ranging and bandwidth request use contention-based scheme to access the network. Initial ranging is for a
new mobile station (MS) to join the network which requires a long preamble. The bandwidth request is for a MS to request uplink
(UL) allocation which requires a short preamble. The non-real time polling service (nrtPS) (for FTP) and best effort (for web
browsing) use bandwidth request via contention-based or by piggybacking the requests to granted data allocations [3].
Initial ranging and bandwidth request adopt PN code sequences to mitigate collisions. The code is spread over multiple subchannels
in one symbol. The minimal allocation for initial ranging is 6 adjacent subchannels and 2 symbols (also called UL initial ranging
slot). The minimal allocation for bandwidth request is 6 adjacent subchannels and one symbol. The above definitions follow those
in the WiMAX Forum Mobile System Profile. There are 144 tones in 6 subchannels. Since each tone is BPSK modulated, a PN
code sequence for initial ranging and bandwidth request is 144 bits [3]. The number of codes is 256 in one sector, and these 256
codes are shared among initial ranging, periodic ranging, bandwidth request, and handover ranging. The collision detection is when a
MS does not get the expected response in a given time. The resolution is to use a truncated binary exponential backoff window.
There are few concerns of the 802.16e contention-based messaging protocols. First, based on the WiBro deployments, their capacity
is actually the bottleneck of the network. Second, configurations for initial ranging and bandwidth request can be specified only on a
per sector basis, i.e., they cannot be defined on a per user class per sector basis. As a result, no service differentiation can be provided
to MSs for initial ranging or bandwidth request within a sector. We propose to have the parameters for initial ranging and bandwidth
request to be specified on a per user class per sector basis for IEEE 802.16m. The benefit of using prioritized initial ranging is
discussed in Reference 1. This document discusses the QoS framework for bandwidth request and allocation-based transmission.
2.2.2 Simulation Configurations
Although the following discusses the simulation results for initial ranging, the conclusion is also applicable to bandwidth request.
2.2.2.1 802.16e Initial Ranging Configuration
As previously described, the basic allocation for contention-based signaling is that two symbols are needed for initial ranging slot
(since the UL synchronization has not been achieved yet) and one symbol is for bandwidth request [5]. In the current IEEE 802.16
Rev2/D6, for the OFDMA PHY, after completion of contention-based initial ranging during network entry, BS shall send a CDMA
allocation IE to MS.
The CDMA allocation IE corresponds to a particular CDMA initial ranging code. After the MS receives the
5
IEEE C802.16m-08/1049
CDMA allocation IE, the MS sends a RNG-REQ containing MAC address using UL resource pointed by CDMA_Allocation_IE.
When BS receives the RNG-REQ message, it shall respond with a RNG-RSP (with matching MAC address) message.
The RNG-
RSP contains the CIDs (Basic & Primary Management) correspond with MAC address of the MS. If RNG-RSP message is lost, T3
of MS will expire, and MS shall perform contention-based initial ranging again.
There are two reasons that a MS does not get RNG-RSP. One is code collision (i.e., multiple MSs choose the same code) and the
other is excessive interference. Reference 5 indicated that 30 ranging codes per initial ranging slot can be received at the BS at the
same time without having excessive interference. However, when talking to WiMAX chip set vendor at the IEEE 802.16 standards
meetings July 2008, only 3 or 4 codes can be received at the same time.
To support prioritized initial ranging, there are two proposals. One is to boost up the transmit power of the initial ranging code, and
the other is to reserve certain codes (and their associated resources) for the priority users. The following analyzes the performance of
the latter proposal.
Traffic assumptions:
Intel’s contribution [6] assumes 10 MHz/10 MHz FDD and 60 VoIP calls/MHz/sector.
Document [SRD] defines the VoIP capacity [active users/MHz/sector] to be > 30.)
more than what is generated by the number of VoIP calls.
(The 802.16m System Requirement
However, the traffic load for initial ranging is
For example, all the following scenarios generate initial ranging load.
The user powers on their 802.16 device and stays idle (idle users), the user attempts to initiate a connection (i.e., data, VoIP, video)
(active users) or National Security/Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP) users need to access the network during emergency.
Hence, the
traffic load is much higher than the assumption of considering only VoIP load.
Instead of pin pointing a specific traffic load, we use a parametric approach to model the traffic load.
the performance of prioritized initial ranging under various traffic loads.
That is to say that we analyze
We assume that among the sector load for initial ranging,
R% is for regular calls and P% is for priority calls, where R = 90 and P = 10 [7]. The initial ranging arrival follows Poisson
distribution.
Parameters:

Initial ranging region: The time between initial ranging regions (1 – 8 frames)

Number of initial ranging codes (1 – 256)

Number of initial ranging slots (1 – 2)
Interference analysis:
6
IEEE C802.16m-08/1049
Two types of code interference analysis are modeled:
1.
Multiple users choose the same code (code collision)
2.
Excessive interference at the receiver (code interference)

Code interference threshold (4 or 8)
Mitigation techniques:
We investigate the effectiveness of the following mitigation techniques using modeling and simulation.
a.
Dedicated code

b.
Dedicated initial ranging slot

c.
Orthogonal code; this solves the code collision, but does not resolve code interference.
Dedicated subchannel (orthogonal frequency) and dedicated symbol (orthogonal time); this solves code interference.
Time between dedicated initial ranging regions

Dedicated frame (orthogonal time); this solves code interference.
2.2.2.2 Simulation Results
Simulation is conducted for the following cases.
Case
Regular
Priority IR
Regular
Priority IR
Time
Time
Code
IR code
code
IR slot
slot
between
between
interference
range
range
number
number
regular IR
priority IR
threshold
region
region
th
(every n
(every nth
frame)
frame)
I.1
1-64
65-72
1
1
1
1
4
I.2
1-72
N/A
1
N/A
1
N/A
4
I.3
1-64
65-72
1
1
1
1
8
I.4
1-72
N/A
1
N/A
1
N/A
8
I.5
1-32
33-36
1
1
1
1
8
I.6
1-36
N/A
1
N/A
1
N/A
8
II.1
1-64
65-72
1
2
1
1
4
II.5
1-32
33-36
1
2
1
1
8
III.1
1-72
1-72
1
N/A
1, 2, 3,
8
4
4,5,6,7
7
IEEE C802.16m-08/1049
In Case I.1, there is only one initial ranging slot, but regular and priority users have their dedicated codes. In Case I.2, there is only
one initial ranging slot, but regular and priority users share the code space. As shown in Figure 3, Case I.1 performs worse than case
I.2 which means if there are no orthogonal resources in time and/or frequency (e.g. initial ranging slot) for priority users, division of
code space does not help. The reason is that since the dominating interference factor is excessive interference, division of the code
space does not provide any benefit.
Initial Raning Performance Analysis for 802.16e/m Networks
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Probability
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
Total IR Arrival Rate (= lt where t = 5 ms)
overall IR success rate (I.2)
reg interference (I.1)
cc pri to pri (I.1)
regular IR success rate (I.1)
overall interference (I.2)
cc pri to reg (I.1)
priority IR success rate (I.1)
cc all to all (I.2)
cc reg to pri (I.1)
pri interference (I.1)
cc reg to reg (I.1)
Figure 3: Initial Ranging Performance for Cases I.1 and I.2
Cases I.3 and I.4 are similar to Cases I.1 and I.2 except the code interference threshold is increased from 4 to 8. However, the overall
trend does not change (the performance curves are not shown here).
Cases I.5 and I.6 (shown in Figure 4) are similar to Cases I.3 and I.4 except that the code space for regular user and priority user is
reduced by half. The overall trend is still the same as that in Figure 3. However, the dominating interference factor is a function of
the initial ranging load. For smaller initial ranging load, the dominating interference factor is code collision; for high initial ranging
load, the dominating interference factor is the code interference. The interference threshold determines at what traffic load the
excessive interference becomes the dominating factor. Since service differentiation is more needed during high load, the code space
division does not help these two cases either.
8
IEEE C802.16m-08/1049
Initial Raning Performance Analysis for 802.16e/m Networks
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Probability
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
Total IR Arrival Rate (= lt where t = 5 ms)
regular IR success rate (I.5)
reg interference (I.5)
cc pri to pri (I.5)
overall IR success rate (I.6)
overall interference (I.6)
cc pri to reg (I.5)
priority IR success rate (I.5)
cc all to all (I.6)
cc reg to pri (I.5)
pri interference (I.5)
cc reg to reg (I.5)
Figure 4: Initial Ranging Performance for Cases I.5 and I.6
Cases II.1 shows a different trend (see Figure 5). The probability of success for priority initial ranging can be maintained about 90%
for all initial ranging arrival load. The reason is a dedicated initial ranging slot is allocated for priority users.
9
IEEE C802.16m-08/1049
Initial Raning Performance Analysis for 802.16e/m Networks
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Probability
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
Total IR Arrival Rate (= lt where t = 5 ms)
priority IR success rate (II.1)
pri interference (II.1)
regular IR success rate (II.1)
cc reg to reg (II.1)
reg interference (II.1)
cc pri to pri (II.1)
Figure 5: Initial Ranging Performance Analysis for Cases II.1
Case II.5 has a similar trend as Case II.1 (the performance curves are not shown here). The differences between Case II.5 and Case
II.1 are that the former has half of the codes and more relaxed code interference threshold.
Case III.1 assigns 7 frames (out of every 8 frames) for regular user traffic and 1 frame (out of every 8 frames) for priority user traffic.
A similar trend as that in Case II.1 can be observed in Figure 6. Although the probability of success for priority initial ranging
degrades with higher initial ranging load, its performance is better than that of regular user.
10
IEEE C802.16m-08/1049
Initial Raning Performance Analysis for 802.16e/m Networks
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Probability
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
Total IR Arrival Rate (= lt where t = 5 ms)
priority IR success rate (III.1)
reg interference (II.5)
regular IR success rate (III.1)
cc reg to reg (III.1)
pri interference (III.1)
cc pri to pri (III.1)
Figure 6: Initial Ranging Performance Analysis for Cases III.1
2.2.2.3 Observation
In most of the cases, the excessive interference is the dominating factor of interference. As a result, division of the code space does
not provide any benefit. Division of code space must be accompanied by dedicated time/frequency resources.
2.2.3 Guidelines
a. Assign one or more dedicated initial ranging slot for regular user and one dedicated initial ranging slot for priority user for a larger
channel bandwidth (e.g. 10 MHz). Also assign a set of dedicated codes for regular user and another dedicated set for priority user.
b. Assign one or more dedicated initial ranging frames for regular user and one dedicated initial ranging frame for priority user for a
smaller channel bandwidth (e.g. 5 MHz).
c. The above guidelines are also applicable to bandwidth request.
11
IEEE C802.16m-08/1049
2.2.4 Conclusion
The techniques used in Cases II and III are recommended.
Case II requires the use of an additional initial ranging slot while Case III
incurs additional delay (on the order of ten’s of ms) for initial ranging request.
2.3
Dedicated Codes for Bandwidth Request and Handover Ranging
References 8 and 9 proposed to use dedicated codes for bandwidth request or handover ranging to speed up the process time. For
example, the dedicated code may imply additional information such as capacity request size; as a result, one round trip delay time can
be reduced during bandwidth request process.
The dedicated codes technique is proposed to be one of the techniques in the
Prioritized QoS Framework.
2.4
Prioritized Service Flow Admission
The priority access indicator is passed to the network at the Adding Service step in network entry or network re-entry. Priority
treatment is done first by mapping the priority access indicator to the proper pre-provisioned Service Flow ID (SFID) or dynamic
Service Flow if supported. Out of the five 802.16e QoS classes, the following four are considered appropriate for priority access
services: UGS, rtps, Ertps, and nrtps. Within each QoS class, authorized user can get non-preempted preferential treatment for their
traffic in the network. One example is to perform priority treatment via queuing and scheduling; authorized user has their request in
the front of the queue. Within the authorized users of the same QoS class, there are multiple sub-priority levels. The sub-priority level
and the request arrival time determine the queue position.
16m BS
16m MS
Service flow request
Connection Management
(Service Flow
Authorization Module)
Service flow
request
Local Resource
Info
Service Flow Admission Priority Queue
P P P P
r r r r
i i i i
P P P P
r r r r
i i i i
UGS
rtPS
P P P P
r r r r
i i i i
ertPS
P P P P
r r r r
i i i i
nrtPS
P P P P
r r r r
i i i i
BE
Figure 7: Prioritized Service Flow Admission
Figure 7 shows the architecture of the prioritized service flow admission.
Service flow Authorization Module admits service flow
request based on local resource availability, QoS parameters, request priority and request arrival time.
unavailable, the prioritized request is queued based on its QoS type and priority.
request will be discarded.
If the resource is currently
If the resource is unavailable, a non-prioritized
Once the resource is available, the queued requests are processed. The queuing and scheduling mechanism
12
IEEE C802.16m-08/1049
of Priority Queue is implementation specific. For admitted service flow, the priority is carried on for dynamic radio bandwidth
allocation.
2.5
Air Interface Changes to Support Prioritized Service Flow Admission
We proposed to modify the existing 802.16e fields
•
Traffic Priority in Service Flow TLV
•
Confirmation code in DSx-RSP and DSx-ACK
The reasons for these changes are:
•
To support the prioritized service flow, the priority information shall be carried in the service flow management messages and
processed by Connection Management entity
•
•
A mechanism to allow DSx to differentiate the following two scenarios:
–
Priority services requested by authorized users
–
Regular services requested by authorized users
The timer and reply code are needed for preempted or delayed admission handling
The affected Service Flow management messages are:
•
Addition: DSA-REQ, DSA-RSP, DSA-ACK
•
Change: DSC-REQ, DSC-RSP, DSC-ACK
•
Deletion: DSD-REQ, DSD-RSP
We also propose to add new timers
•
Add a new timer for MS to handle request queuing
•
Add a new timer for BS to handle request queuing
2.5.1
Modify existing 802.16e fields
The following 802.16e fields are proposed to be modified:
•
Traffic Priority in Service Flow TLV
•
Confirmation code in DSx-RSP and DSx-ACK
The original traffic priority format is the 802.16e is listed below.
13
IEEE C802.16m-08/1049
Our proposed 802.16m traffic priority format is listed below.
Two bits are reused in the 802.16e Traffic Priority field. Service flow admission bit can serve as priority access indicator. If it is set to
prioritized, the service flow request will be queued even though the current radio resource availability doesn’t allow the admission of
this service flow. If it is set to non-prioritized, the request will be discarded if radio resource is not available at request time. The preemption bit is used only when service flow admission bit is set to be prioritized. The queuing treatment for prioritized service flow
request can be precedence only or pre-emption.
We propose to add new confirmation codes for prioritized request status.
The new confirmations codes are reject-temporary/queued
and reject-permanent/queue-timeout.
Above changes will affect following Service Flow management messages
•
Addition: DSA-REQ, DSA-RSP, DSA-ACK
•
Change: DSC-REQ, DSC-RSP, DSC-ACK
•
Deletion: DSD-REQ, DSD-RSP
2.5.2
Add new timers
In order to handle queued service flow request, timers shall be added to MS and BS to prevent deadlock.
2.6
Prioritized Radio Resource Allocation
The scheduler is responsible for dynamic radio resource allocation. Within each QoS class, admitted/active service flows have
different priorities for their traffic.
behavior should be measurable.
QoS classes.
The queuing and scheduling in the scheduler would be implementation specific, but their
It is envisioned that a priority resource allocation technique will be “recommended” for each of the
The “recommended” priority resource allocation technique will be presented in future sessions.
14
IEEE C802.16m-08/1049
3
Priority Access Requirements
3.1
Priority Access Service
ETS is a super set of all emergency services for an authorized select group of users. Wireless Priority Service (WPS) is one of ETS
that is on wireless networks. The Wireless Priority Service should provide end-to-end treatment across the network (e.g., access,
transport, and egress) so that higher communication session completion rates, as compared with public communication session
completion rates, would be successfully achieved. Communication sessions in this context include voice, multimedia, and data.” [1]
DHS/NCS has worked with service providers as well as equipment vendors to get WPS implemented [10]:

“Priority access service is intended to facilitate emergency response and recovery operations in response to natural and manmade disasters and events, such as floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, and terrorist attacks. Priority access service is also
intended to support both national and international emergency communications.”

“Priority access service is based upon, and complies with, the FCC Second Report and Order (R&O) 00-242 (Wireless
Telecommunications (WT) Docket No. 96-86).

“Priority access service is intended to allow qualified and authorized National Security and Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP)
users to obtain priority access to radio traffic channels and core network resources during situations when Commercial
Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) provider network congestion is blocking call attempts”.
WiMAX network should provide the Priority Service too. The end-to-end priority service needs to cover radio accessing, data
transportation and interconnection with other networks. Priority access service only focuses on the radio accessing part of the priority
service. The NS/EP authorized user shall have higher priority level to obtain radio resource to access WiMAX network to facilitate
emergency recovery.
End-to-end ETS is across different telecommunication networks and different countries. There are ETS standardization activities
around the globe. The following standards bodies have ETS activities:
3.2
•
ITU (International Telecommunication Union)
•
IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force)
•
ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute)
•
ATIS (Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solution)
•
TIA (Telecommunications Industry Association)
•
3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project)
•
3GPP2 (3rd Generation Partnership Project 2)
Service Scenarios
We address two types of calling scenarios. Scenarios are presented to develop the requirements and technical solutions for priority
access.
15
IEEE C802.16m-08/1049

Scenario 1: Mobile originating call.
It is for authorized user to initiate a voice, data or video call to any party using
802.16m technology.

Scenario 2: Mobile terminating call.
It is for authorized user to call another authorized user reachable using 802.16m
technology.
3.3
Requirements
The associated requirements for priority access service [1] include:
•
Ubiquitous Services:
–
Able to make a call/session in times of disaster, national emergency, or for executive/governmental communications
relating to National Security / Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP).
–
•
•
•
Availability:
–
It is available to NS/EP users at all times.
–
End-to-end QoS should be provided based on 802.16e QoS classes and parameters
QoS
Security
–
•
It applies to voice, video, and data services
“Networks must have protection against corruption and intrusion such as unauthorized access, control and traffic”
Priority treatment
–
“ETS communications should be provided preferential end-to-end treatment so that higher communication session
completion rates, as compared with public communication session completion rates, would be successfully
achieved”
4
Text Proposal
[---------------------------------------------------Start of Text Proposal--------------------------------------------------]
Section 10 Medium Access Control Sub-Layer
10.x Connection Establishment and Maintenance
10.x.1 Bandwidth Request
Assign one or more dedicated bandwidth request slot for regular user and one dedicated bandwidth request slot for priority user. Also
assign a set of dedicated codes for regular user bandwidth request and another dedicated set for priority user bandwidth request.
10.x.2 Service Flow Admission
The following 802.16e fields are proposed to be modified:
16
IEEE C802.16m-08/1049
•
Traffic Priority in Service Flow TLV
•
Confirmation code in DSx-RSP and DSx-ACK
The original traffic priority format is the 802.16e is listed below.
Our proposed 802.16m traffic priority format is listed below.
Two bits are reused in the 802.16e Traffic Priority field. Service flow admission bit can serve as priority access indicator. If it is set to
prioritized, the service flow request will be queued even though the current radio resource availability doesn’t allow the admission of
this service flow. If it is set to non-prioritized, the request will be discarded if radio resource is not available at request time. The preemption bit is used only when service flow admission bit is set to be prioritized. The queuing treatment for prioritized service flow
request can be precedence only or pre-emption.
We propose to add new confirmation codes for prioritized request status.
The new confirmations codes are reject-temporary/queued
and reject-permanent/queue-timeout.
Above changes will affect following Service Flow management messages
•
Addition: DSA-REQ, DSA-RSP, DSA-ACK
•
Change: DSC-REQ, DSC-RSP, DSC-ACK
•
Deletion: DSD-REQ, DSD-RSP
In order to handle queued service flow request, timers shall be added to MS and BS to prevent deadlock.
[---------------------------------------------------End of Text Proposal--------------------------------------------------]
17
IEEE C802.16m-08/1049
5. References
[1] “Overview of Standards in Support of Emergency Telecommunication Service (ETS),” ATIS-pp-0100009, November 2006.
[2]”Recommendations and Requirements for Networks based on WiMAX Forum Certified Products,” WiMAX Forum Release 1.5,
Jan. 2007
[3] D. Staehle and R. Pries, “Comparative study of the IEEE 802.16 random access mechanisms,” IEEE NGMAST, 2007
[4] D. J. Shyy, "Interference and Delay Analysis of Mobile WiMAX Networks", OPNETWORK Conference, Aug. 2008.
[5] J. You etal, “Capacity evaluation of the OFDMA-CDMA ranging subsystem in IEEE 802.16-2004”, IEEE 2005.
[6] S. Azizi and X. Yang, “Requirements for ranging sequences design for IEEE 802.16m,” C802.16m-UL_ctrl-08/013r1, 2008.
[7] “Wireless Priority Service (WPS) Industry Requirements Document for the Initial Operating Capability (IOC) for CDMA-based
System”, Feb. 2002.
[8] “Proposed Text on BW-REQ Channel for Baseline Content of Uplink Control Structure for IEEE 802.16m SDD based on
Contribution C802.16m-08/725”, IEEE C802.16m-UL_ctrl-08/866r3
[9] “Handover using Exclusive HO Ranging Channel”, IEEE C802.16m-08/714
[10] Wireless Priority Service (WPS) Industry Requirements for UMTS – Phase 1 – Redirection to GSM,” DHS/NCS IR Document,
Version 0.3, April 2005
[11] Quality of Service Attributes for Diameter,” draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-02.txt
[12] “Quality of Service Parameters for Usage with the AAA Framework,” draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-01.txt
[13] “RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services,” draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-03.txt
[14] “QoS NSLP QSPEC Template,” draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-18.txt
[15] Report ITU-R.[PPDR]: “Radiocommunication objectives and requirements for public protection and disaster relief (PPDR)”
[16] Recommendation H.460.4 – Call priority designation for H.323 calls
[17] Draft recommendation H.SETS – security for ETS (H.235)
[18] E.106 – Description of an international emergency preference scheme (IEPS)
[19] Draft Recommendation U.roec – network requirements and capabilities to support ETS
[20] RFC3523: “Internet Emergency Preparedness (IEPREP) Telephony Topology Terminology”
[21] TETRA: “Mobile narrowband and wideband communications for public safety applications”
[22] TR41.4 TSB146: “Telecommunications – IP Telephony Infrastructure – IP Telephony Support for Emergency Calling Service)
[23] 3GPP TS 22.153, “Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Multimedia priority service”, Release 8.
[24] 3GPP S.R0017-0, “Multimedia Priority Service (MMPS) for MMD-based Networks – Stage 1 Requirements”
18